ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2017
Trends in Use of Biomarker Protocols for the Evaluation of Possible Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two-Dimensional MoSACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Article
- Visualization of Critical Limits and Critical Values Facilitates Interpretation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Oxidation-reduction imaging of myoglobin reveals two-phase oxidation in the reperfused myocardium.Basic research in cardiology · 2024Article
- Postoperative serum myoglobin as a predictor of early allograft dysfunction after liver transplantation.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Cardioprotective Effects of Aconite in Isoproterenol-Induced Myocardial Infarction in Rats.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2022Article
- Comparative evaluation of 15-minute rapid diagnosis of ischemic heart disease by high-sensitivity quantification of cardiac biomarkers.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Improved efficiency and cost reduction in the emergency department by replacing contemporary sensitive with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin immunoassay.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2019Article
- Article
- Point-of-Care Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Central Vietnam: International Exchange, Needs Assessment, and Spatial Care Paths.Point of care · 2018Article
- The circulating non-coding RNA landscape for biomarker research: lessons and prospects from cardiovascular diseases.Acta pharmacologica Sinica · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious combinations of creatine kinase-MB, myoglobin, and cardiac troponin I or T (cTnI/cTnT) have been used to evaluate patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes. The current recommendation is to use the 99th percentile of cTnI/cTnT as the sole marker for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND
resultsWe retrospectively analyzed cardiac marker protocols collected from 824 US hospitals undergoing Chest Pain Center Accreditation through the Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care from 2009 to 2014. Data were obtained by a self-reported survey that addressed cardiac marker(s), sampling time periods, and cut points used for evaluation of suspected acute myocardial infarction. The combination of cTnI or cTnT with creatine kinase-MB was the most commonly used biomarker strategy. Use of cTnI or cTnT as the sole marker increased over time (14-37%;
conclusionThere is considerable variation in cardiac marker testing strategies used in US hospitals for evaluation of suspected acute myocardial infarction. Although increasing, 24% of hospitals used a cTn alone strategy, and only 49% used cTn at the recommended 99th percentile cut point. This has important implications for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.